It is very strange for me to understand that in the UK, I have the option to watch every NRL game I want on TV and mostly live yet in the UK all I can muster up is two games and a couple of poorly produced highlight/comment shows.

Not sure how often this has been discussed as I am new to this site but interested to hear opinions of others.

I would think that terrestrial coverage of one or two games with the rest on Sky would increase revenue and profile.

Has this been debated by SLE in the past? if so, what was the defining argument/s against such coverage?

it would generate more revenue and profile, but not enough revenue to cover the potential loss in funding from SKY if the RFL said they weren't going to give them exclusive rights for SL. You'd also have to find a broadcaster who was prepared to show it and do it justice. At the moment SKY are the only broadcasters prepared to pay for it.

it would generate more revenue and profile, but not enough revenue to cover the potential loss in funding from SKY if the RFL said they weren't going to give them exclusive rights for SL. You'd also have to find a broadcaster who was prepared to show it and do it justice. At the moment SKY are the only broadcasters prepared to pay for it.

surely giving them 5 fixtures to broadcast rather than 2 would be valuable to Sky? BBC pay for the Challenge Cup, wouldn't they be interested in cheap SL rights? I wouldn't give it to BBC anyway, I would offer it to a commercial broadcaster to align the sport with commercial organisations that wish to advertise during fixtures.

I would take a hit on TV income in the short term for increased national profile on television at this point in time.

At present SLE is losing a reported £5mil a year it was offered for title SL sponsorship last season and most clubs are struggling to find strong sponsors due to the small media profile of the sport.

surely giving them 5 fixtures to broadcast rather than 2 would be valuable to Sky? BBC pay for the Challenge Cup, wouldn't they be interested in cheap SL rights? I wouldn't give it to BBC anyway, I would offer it to a commercial broadcaster to align the sport with commercial organisations that wish to advertise during fixtures.

I would take a hit on TV income in the short term for increased national profile on television at this point in time.

At present SLE is losing a reported £5mil a year it was offered for title SL sponsorship last season and most clubs are struggling to find strong sponsors due to the small media profile of the sport.

I would think that terrestrial coverage of one or two games with the rest on Sky would increase revenue and profile.

Has this been debated by SLE in the past? if so, what was the defining argument/s against such coverage?

It comes down to this - you've got to spend money to make money. RL isn't as big over here as it is in Australia and companies have to spend money to put it on tv. The BBC – the only terrestrial broadcaster with any realistic interest in the sport – simply doesn’t have the sports budget to put a live RL match on every week. As cheap as Joe Public thinks that might be, it really isn’t. I also don’t think the comp is anyway strong enough to demand rights being split across different networks. Sky would be pretty narked if they lost the right to show live matches exclusively and would probably end up paying less as a result.

The only league in this country that can afford to have all its matches broadcast in one way or another is the Premier League as far as I know. Nothing else will ever come close – this isn’t a slight on RL, it’s reality.

The best we could hope for would be to create a new tournament, something akin to the 9's concept, and look to find a terrestrial partner.. other than that, the only RL your likely to see live on terrestrial TV is Internationals.

It comes down to this - you've got to spend money to make money. RL isn't as big over here as it is in Australia and companies have to spend money to put it on tv. The BBC – the only terrestrial broadcaster with any realistic interest in the sport – simply doesn’t have the sports budget to put a live RL match on every week. As cheap as Joe Public thinks that might be, it really isn’t. I also don’t think the comp is anyway strong enough to demand rights being split across different networks. Sky would be pretty narked if they lost the right to show live matches exclusively and would probably end up paying less as a result.

The only league in this country that can afford to have all its matches broadcast in one way or another is the Premier League as far as I know. Nothing else will ever come close – this isn’t a slight on RL, it’s reality.

Interesting points and perhaps reason why BBC only want the England games for RLWC.

Not sure on the costs of televising fixtures. Any idea?

I would contemplate promoting title and secondary sponsorship opportunities on the proviso that this income will then be spent to show every game on TV. Would generate interest i am sure for a title sponsor and would be snapped up in no time.

Interesting points and perhaps reason why BBC only want the England games for RLWC.

Actually the World Cup is being produced by IMG media who the RFL delegated responsibility of distribution of the rights, so the BBC costs there will be minimal (so the cameras at the games on Premier and BBC are being produced by the same company in effect). If the BBC got live Super League they would have to arrange for cameras etc to be at games themselves. Hence (one of the reasons) why there is so little weekly live sport on the BBC nowadays.

It would be a start if we could get the BBC to show the superleague show nationally, at a reasonable time and for at least 60 minutes. Maybe then we could look at getting more live games on council telly

From 2009-11, Super League was shown on FTA TV in Oz. It was awful. Channel 9 (the NRL FTA broadcaster) showed the games at 1am on a Tuesday, which nobody bothered to watch as they know the result from 4 days before.

The current SL broadcast deal in Australia (with Eurosport) is the best deal SL has had in Australia since I started following it. All games are either live or no more than an hour delayed (which makes little difference for a 6:00am kickoff). They also replay the games numerous times during the week.

From 2009-11, Super League was shown on FTA TV in Oz. It was awful. Channel 9 (the NRL FTA broadcaster) showed the games at 1am on a Tuesday, which nobody bothered to watch as they know the result from 4 days before.

The current SL broadcast deal in Australia (with Eurosport) is the best deal SL has had in Australia since I started following it. All games are either live or no more than an hour delayed (which makes little difference for a 6:00am kickoff). They also replay the games numerous times during the week.

Channel Nine did not give it much of a go, there was some fanfare when it was announced in the UK, and it fizzled away in a hurry, they kept moving it around or just not showing it some Sundays. Then as you say it went to the middle of the night then vanished without a mention.

Pay TV is going backwards at a great rate of knots with all of the new free view channels, the deals they are offering looks like desperation. I have had Foxtel in the past and its not worth the money for me, I don't watch that much TV to warrant the cost.

I would like to see it on ONE, it would get more viewers.

Dave.Plenty of overseas sport is shown on free TV in Oz either as a highlights package or regular season games.